“Same-sex marriage supporters claim cars were used as weapons in the first violent clash between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigners ahead of the postal vote,”

reported news.com.au.

Channel 9’s Today show sympathetically interviewed the woman it claimed had been injured, Jessica Payne, who posed in front of the ambulance called to treat her.

“I suffered an injury because people drove their cars nearly at full speed into the yes campaigners here today,”

Payne said.

The reporter did not challenge her story, even though Nine’s own footage showed just one car trying to get through, very slowly.

What a complete hoax.

First, the ACL says it had already called off its meeting at the church because of the threats from activists.

Second, its meeting was not about same-sex marriage at all, but the Safe Schools program.

Third, as The Australian later reported, police say no cars were driven at “nearly full speed” into the crowd, and the woman allegedly injured refused treatment when the ambulance arrived.

A grandfather who’d wanted to go to that meeting has told me he is furious: “Can you imagine my outrage today when the misleading media said there was a clash between pro- and anti-same-sex-marriage supporters! Fifty years of paying taxes and I cannot even go to a meeting now without harassment at best and cancellation at worst.”

I do believe the NO vote will be stronger after the way this has all been handled....even down to the High Court challenge.....the YES voters have become so shrill and the more they do it the more determined I am to vote NO...

if they had gone away quietly and accepted the pleb I would have voted YES at that time..

“Same-sex marriage supporters claim cars were used as weapons in the first violent clash between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigners ahead of the postal vote,”

reported news.com.au.

Channel 9’s Today show sympathetically interviewed the woman it claimed had been injured, Jessica Payne, who posed in front of the ambulance called to treat her.

“I suffered an injury because people drove their cars nearly at full speed into the yes campaigners here today,”

Payne said.

The reporter did not challenge her story, even though Nine’s own footage showed just one car trying to get through, very slowly.

What a complete hoax.

First, the ACL says it had already called off its meeting at the church because of the threats from activists.

Second, its meeting was not about same-sex marriage at all, but the Safe Schools program.

Third, as The Australian later reported, police say no cars were driven at “nearly full speed” into the crowd, and the woman allegedly injured refused treatment when the ambulance arrived.

A grandfather who’d wanted to go to that meeting has told me he is furious: “Can you imagine my outrage today when the misleading media said there was a clash between pro- and anti-same-sex-marriage supporters! Fifty years of paying taxes and I cannot even go to a meeting now without harassment at best and cancellation at worst.”

I do believe the NO vote will be stronger after the way this has all been handled....even down to the High Court challenge.....the YES voters have become so shrill and the more they do it the more determined I am to vote NO...

if they had gone away quietly and accepted the pleb I would have voted YES at that time..

So you will vote no out of spite cods !!

Doesnt matter about how it may affect all the well behaved Yes proponents if the survey get voted down,

"Mark Latham cuts right to the chase with this, stating a ‘same-sex marriage ‘Yes’ vote will open a can of worms’. This is not in any way a slight on the LGBTI community. What Latham is demonstrating is that the legislative workings behind the definition of marriage will not stop if marriage is redefined – they will be unleashed:

If the proposition is carried, the average voter would expect extra clauses to be added to the Marriage Act, widening the scope of wedlock to include homosexuality.

Marriage is currently defined as “between a man and a woman”.

One would logically expect the new legislation to read:

“Marriage is a union between:

a) A man and a woman; or

b) Two gay men; or

c) Two lesbian women.”

But this is not what our parliamentarians have been proposing.

The real kicker here is the major contradiction between what the ‘Yes’ campaign is advocating, and what the drafted legislation from Bill Shorten and the like actually proposes:

He [Bill Shorten] sought to define marriage as “a union between two people” — meaning that all Australian adults were eligible: heterosexuals, homosexuals and people of any other gender or sexuality . . . That is, marriage as a union between any two people of any gender or sexuality.

This raises an immediate contradiction. The current postal vote is asking about “same-sex couples”.

But where is the question covering other possibilities — the various sexual orientations, gender identities and intersex statuses allowed for in both the Labor and Liberal private members’ bills?"

I do believe the NO vote will be stronger after the way this has all been handled....even down to the High Court challenge.....the YES voters have become so shrill and the more they do it the more determined I am to vote NO...

if they had gone away quietly and accepted the pleb I would have voted YES at that time..

So you will vote no out of spite cods !!

Doesnt matter about how it may affect all the well behaved Yes proponents if the survey get voted down,

The wording would have to be something like. Do you agree to change the marriage act from being between a man and a woman to being between two people,yes or no.Otherwise all the other genders will be claiming discrimination.